This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 9 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eburson97.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I wonder about the definition of the term architectural plan. I guess this term could have multiple meaning:
I also guess this article (I designed) should make more clear what meaning it wants explain. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I have undone the merger for now. I don't think it has worked out well. I will try to develope both articles separate again. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 01:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Two problems with this article. a) The language needs a major sort out, I assume because the contributors speak English as a second language. Sorry to criticise but... b) I know a lot about this subject and although some of the content is correct and useful, the overall effect is confused. Help needed to sort this out. ProfDEH ( talk) 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Whatever tag you think is appropriate. I see you have done a huge amount of article input - something I didn't realise when I first made a comment. Technical drawing for example does not have the same problems of content or of language, so I wonder what happened here. A lot of the content is basically OK but lacks clarity.
There are perhaps some differences between US / UK practice and what you are familiar with, especially on the CAD side. I'll try to do some copy editing over the next week, and in the process see if the article really needs restructuring. ProfDEH ( talk) 08:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Mdd you have removed the tag without dong anything to improve the article. This is one of the worst architecture articles on Wikipedia in my opinion and it is highly misleading leaving it as it is without at least a proper cleanup tag. The standard of English in particular is simple unacceptabe, the content shows a poor understanding of the subject. If you are not capable of writing competently on the subject you should leave it alone. I'm sorry to have to criticise in these terms but you have acted strongly to discourage anyone else from contributing. Please do not remove the tag, that is not an option open to the originating editor until the criticisms are adequately addressed. ProfDEH ( talk) 11:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
How about a deal Marcel, I'll leave the rewrite tag off but you don't revert edits. I know a lot about the subject and can improve the standard of the article, but it's going to be a waste of my time if you just challenge everything. Talk by all means but not revert, OK, what do you say to that? ProfDEH ( talk) 09:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
One of the more obvious things I've spotted is the need to globalise this article. For instance, mention of the Yingzao Fashi and the methodical recording of construction details in the Architecture of the Song Dynasty, should surely feature. I'm also quite uncomfortable with the reduction of architectural drawing to the technical - that's a part, but really architectural drawing is 'communication' and that can be achieved in as many varied ways as there are art techniques - some of which don't illustrate buildings - eg. Libeskind's 'musical' line drawings, Hadid's superb pre-construction period paintings - in fact where the line between 'architectural' drawing ends and 'fine art' begins can be quite blurred. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 01:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is watched every day by at least a hunderd people, see here. I think we owe it to those people to keep the article in good shape. If you are making a mayor edit, such as removing most images, it is required to add a {{inuse|section}} tag. You can removed it when the edit is done, or the images replaced.
If you need more time you could consider creating a temporary sub-userpage, for example User:ProfDEH/Architectural drawing, to experiment with the best result. You can experiment for weeks there. I have promised not to undo you edits for a month, and I will. But I do have my limits. Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Maybe I will comment on some of the changes you made on the talkpage, like this.
Like I said, patience please. I'm trying to make this article readable and informative, and to lift it above the level of the mundane, real estate world it seems to have got itself into. Architecture is an art form first and foremost, not a dull manufacturing process. Yes I will put illustrations in appropriate places, but the current selection are pretty banal on the whole and there is much better material available. Likewise, I will need to add references and assess the existing ones (has anyone spotted the rude words in some of them?) but for example the Triangle Office Guide 'glossary of real estate terms' is simply not an authoritative reference. Just because it's on the Web, doesn't mean it's true. ProfDEH ( talk) 07:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed User:ProfDEH today rewrote the sentence:
Into
These sentences are based on the following three sources:
Now the phrase User:ProfDEH added is "commonly used to refer to a set of drawings for a building project".
Now I think:
Especially these two last meanings made me realize the term "architectural drawing" and "architectural plan" are not the same. Simple:
Now I think the phrase The terms 'plans' or 'architectural plans' are commonly used to refer to a set of drawings for a building project... isn't absolute, it can't be. Maybe the phrase is true when you are on a construction site or in an architectural agency (according to User:ProfDEH experience), but the current three sources definitly don't confirm this new phrase.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the new lead sentence is no improvement. It goes like this:
In compare to the initial lead sentence:
My main objection here is, that is is not just architects who use Architectural drawing. There is a whole series of specialists involved in architectural drawing. As I recall most of the architectural drawings often aren't even drawn by architects, but by drafters.
We have been having a similar discussion about this on the technical drawing article. Here we agreed the term "technical drawings" doesn't only relate to set of drawings, but is a field as well of principles, education, practise, theoretical development etc...
So I think this new lead sentencese should (eventually) be rewritten.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 22:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed something else. Again an initial source is left in place, while the complete text is rewritten.
This desription was used in the initial version, but is gone in the new lead sentence, while the reference sign is still there. This is not right. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 22:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
This subject made me wonder about the people involved in architectural drawing. My first impression:
Architectural drawings are used by the
It might be a good idea to develop this into a separte chapter as well.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 11:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
To address some of the concerns above:
Some questions:
ProfDEH ( talk) 20:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Due to possible violation of copyright, see WP:Copyvio, I have removed one or more section of this article for now.
I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 23:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Mayor changes have occured since these initial development:
-- Mdd ( talk) 13:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Architectural drawing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a new article Axonometry. I think, it could be interesting for architects.-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 11:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Does this entry cover this subject? I didn't see a section on it. Seems like it would be good to cover. FloridaArmy ( talk) 13:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 9 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eburson97.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I wonder about the definition of the term architectural plan. I guess this term could have multiple meaning:
I also guess this article (I designed) should make more clear what meaning it wants explain. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I have undone the merger for now. I don't think it has worked out well. I will try to develope both articles separate again. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 01:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Two problems with this article. a) The language needs a major sort out, I assume because the contributors speak English as a second language. Sorry to criticise but... b) I know a lot about this subject and although some of the content is correct and useful, the overall effect is confused. Help needed to sort this out. ProfDEH ( talk) 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Whatever tag you think is appropriate. I see you have done a huge amount of article input - something I didn't realise when I first made a comment. Technical drawing for example does not have the same problems of content or of language, so I wonder what happened here. A lot of the content is basically OK but lacks clarity.
There are perhaps some differences between US / UK practice and what you are familiar with, especially on the CAD side. I'll try to do some copy editing over the next week, and in the process see if the article really needs restructuring. ProfDEH ( talk) 08:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Mdd you have removed the tag without dong anything to improve the article. This is one of the worst architecture articles on Wikipedia in my opinion and it is highly misleading leaving it as it is without at least a proper cleanup tag. The standard of English in particular is simple unacceptabe, the content shows a poor understanding of the subject. If you are not capable of writing competently on the subject you should leave it alone. I'm sorry to have to criticise in these terms but you have acted strongly to discourage anyone else from contributing. Please do not remove the tag, that is not an option open to the originating editor until the criticisms are adequately addressed. ProfDEH ( talk) 11:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
How about a deal Marcel, I'll leave the rewrite tag off but you don't revert edits. I know a lot about the subject and can improve the standard of the article, but it's going to be a waste of my time if you just challenge everything. Talk by all means but not revert, OK, what do you say to that? ProfDEH ( talk) 09:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
One of the more obvious things I've spotted is the need to globalise this article. For instance, mention of the Yingzao Fashi and the methodical recording of construction details in the Architecture of the Song Dynasty, should surely feature. I'm also quite uncomfortable with the reduction of architectural drawing to the technical - that's a part, but really architectural drawing is 'communication' and that can be achieved in as many varied ways as there are art techniques - some of which don't illustrate buildings - eg. Libeskind's 'musical' line drawings, Hadid's superb pre-construction period paintings - in fact where the line between 'architectural' drawing ends and 'fine art' begins can be quite blurred. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 01:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is watched every day by at least a hunderd people, see here. I think we owe it to those people to keep the article in good shape. If you are making a mayor edit, such as removing most images, it is required to add a {{inuse|section}} tag. You can removed it when the edit is done, or the images replaced.
If you need more time you could consider creating a temporary sub-userpage, for example User:ProfDEH/Architectural drawing, to experiment with the best result. You can experiment for weeks there. I have promised not to undo you edits for a month, and I will. But I do have my limits. Good luck. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Maybe I will comment on some of the changes you made on the talkpage, like this.
Like I said, patience please. I'm trying to make this article readable and informative, and to lift it above the level of the mundane, real estate world it seems to have got itself into. Architecture is an art form first and foremost, not a dull manufacturing process. Yes I will put illustrations in appropriate places, but the current selection are pretty banal on the whole and there is much better material available. Likewise, I will need to add references and assess the existing ones (has anyone spotted the rude words in some of them?) but for example the Triangle Office Guide 'glossary of real estate terms' is simply not an authoritative reference. Just because it's on the Web, doesn't mean it's true. ProfDEH ( talk) 07:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed User:ProfDEH today rewrote the sentence:
Into
These sentences are based on the following three sources:
Now the phrase User:ProfDEH added is "commonly used to refer to a set of drawings for a building project".
Now I think:
Especially these two last meanings made me realize the term "architectural drawing" and "architectural plan" are not the same. Simple:
Now I think the phrase The terms 'plans' or 'architectural plans' are commonly used to refer to a set of drawings for a building project... isn't absolute, it can't be. Maybe the phrase is true when you are on a construction site or in an architectural agency (according to User:ProfDEH experience), but the current three sources definitly don't confirm this new phrase.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 21:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the new lead sentence is no improvement. It goes like this:
In compare to the initial lead sentence:
My main objection here is, that is is not just architects who use Architectural drawing. There is a whole series of specialists involved in architectural drawing. As I recall most of the architectural drawings often aren't even drawn by architects, but by drafters.
We have been having a similar discussion about this on the technical drawing article. Here we agreed the term "technical drawings" doesn't only relate to set of drawings, but is a field as well of principles, education, practise, theoretical development etc...
So I think this new lead sentencese should (eventually) be rewritten.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 22:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed something else. Again an initial source is left in place, while the complete text is rewritten.
This desription was used in the initial version, but is gone in the new lead sentence, while the reference sign is still there. This is not right. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 22:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
This subject made me wonder about the people involved in architectural drawing. My first impression:
Architectural drawings are used by the
It might be a good idea to develop this into a separte chapter as well.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 11:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
To address some of the concerns above:
Some questions:
ProfDEH ( talk) 20:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Due to possible violation of copyright, see WP:Copyvio, I have removed one or more section of this article for now.
I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 23:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Mayor changes have occured since these initial development:
-- Mdd ( talk) 13:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Architectural drawing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a new article Axonometry. I think, it could be interesting for architects.-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 11:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Does this entry cover this subject? I didn't see a section on it. Seems like it would be good to cover. FloridaArmy ( talk) 13:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)